Rooley Moor Wind Farm EIA Chapter 9: Ornithology PROJECT TITLE · ornithology could be combined as a sub-set of the ecology chapter Birds are often the most significant ecological

PROJECT TITLE

SUB TITLE

Rooley Moor Wind Farm EIA Chapter 9: Ornithology

CPL

Rooley Moor Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Contents

9. Ornithology................................................................................................................................................................................. 9-1

9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9-1

9.2 Policy and Context ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9-1

9.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 9-2

9.4 Consultation ................................................................................................................................................................................. 9-2

9.5 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9-5

9.6 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................................................................................... 9-11

9.7 Valued Ornithological Receptors ............................................................................................................................................... 9-19

9.8 Sites Designated for their Ornithological Interest ...................................................................................................................... 9-19

9.9 Assessment of Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................................ 9-25

9.10 Identification of Ornithological Features Subject to Detailed Assessment ................................................................................. 9-25

9.11 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures..................................................................................................................................... 9-34

9.12 Residual Effects ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9-35

9.13 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9-36

9.14 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 9-37

9.15 References................................................................................................................................................................................. 9-37

Appendix 9.1: Figures

Appendix 9.2: Vantage Point Survey Data

Appendix 9.3: 2013 Breeding Bird Survey Report

Appendix 9.4: Collision Risk Modelling Datasheets

Appendix 9.5: Confidential Information

CPL PAGE 9-1


9. Ornithology

9.1 Introduction

9.1. This chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) evaluates the effects of the proposed

Rooley Moor Wind Farm (‘the Development’) on the ornithological interests in the area.

Potential effects on non-avian ecology, including habitats and non-avian species are

considered separately in Chapter 8: Ecology.

9.2. This Chapter is supported by the following Technical Appendices:

Appendix 9.1 Figures

Appendix 9.2 Vantage Point Survey Data

Appendix 9.3 2013 Breeding Bird Survey Report

Appendix 9.4 Collision Risk Modelling Datasheets

Appendix 9.5 Confidential Information

9.3. This chapter should also be used to inform the Competent Authority of any information

required to carry out a formal Habitats Regulations screening assessment for European

Sites designated on account of their ornithological interests (i.e. Special Protection Areas

(SPAs) and some Ramsar Sites).

9.2 Policy and Context

9.4. The baseline surveys and ornithological assessment have been carried out with reference to

the legislation and guidance outlined below. Policies relevant to the consideration of

ornithological resources in determining planning decisions are set out Chapter 5: Planning

Policy Context of this ES

9.5. The ornithological assessment has been undertaken with reference to the following

legislation:

The EC Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds)

(Ref. 9-1)

The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (Ref. 9-2)

The Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (Ref. 9-3)

The Natural Environment & Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (Ref. 9-4)

9.6. Key guidance documents which have been used to inform this assessment include the

following:

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)1 (2006) Guidelines for

Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK (Ref. 9-5).

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (2014). Recommended bird survey methods to inform

impact assessment of onshore windfarms (Ref. 9-6).

Natural England (NE) (2010). Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds (Ref. 9-

7).

SNH (2006). Assessing the significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on birds outwith

designated areas (Ref. 9-8).

1 IEEM became the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) on 1st April 2013.

References to the 2006 Guidelines for Ecological Impacts Assessment in the UK are given as IEEM (2006)

however, reflecting the name of the Institute at the time of publication.

CPL PAGE 9-2


Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Countryside Council for Wales (CCW),

British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), Natural England (NE), Northern Ireland Environment

Agency (NIEA), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Wildfowl and Wetland Trust (WWT)

(2013). The State of the UK’s Birds 2012 (Ref. 9-9).

9.7. Other references are cited in the text and listed in the references section at the end of this

chapter.

9.3 Scope

9.8. This assessment covers potential effects on birds. The scope of survey work undertaken to

inform the assessment was determined following the review of relevant SNH and NE

guidance in place at the time of the surveys. SNH guidance provides much more detailed

advice on survey techniques than the comparable NE guidance and is more regularly

updated (updates were published in 2013 and 2014 for example). It also contains guidance

specific to upland sites (such as Rooley Moor), whereas the NE equivalent appears to be

targeted more at lowland sites. As such, where there are disparities between the SNH and

NE guidance, the survey methodology was primarily designed to meet SNH guidelines.

Further detail is provided in the relevant sections below.

9.3.1 Study Area

9.9. Turbine locations are shown on Figure 9.2 (Appendix 9.1). Vantage Point (VP) surveys

focused on determining flight activity within the turbine envelope, which was defined as all

areas within 200m of proposed turbine locations. Walkover surveys included all land within

the Development Area, defined as all land within the site boundary (see Figure 9.2,

Appendix 9.1) and land visible from within the Development Area, outwith the site boundary.

9.10. A desk study was completed to obtain existing data for target species (see Paragraph 9.5.1)

within the Development Area and a buffer zone of 2km. Existing data in relation to additional

Red and Amber list species of Conservation Concern2 were also obtained from within the

Development Area and a buffer of 500m. A search for statutory sites designated in full or in

part for their ornithological interest was carried out for the Development Area plus 10km and

a search for non-statutory sites with ornithological reasons for designation was carried out

within 2km.

9.4 Consultation

9.11. A scoping report and request for a scoping opinion were issued in June 2012. Copies of

scoping responses received from the consultees can be found in Appendix 2.1. Individual

scoping responses relevant to this ornithological assessment are summarised in Table 9.1

below.

Table 9.1 Scoping Responses

Consultee Response How comment is

addressed

Relevant Section of

ES

Rossendale

Borough Council

and Rochdale

Metropolitan

Borough Council

Records prior to

construction of Scout

Moor should be

interrogated to identify

any before and after

effects. This should

Summary baseline data

collected in 2003 as part of

the EIA for Scout Moor

Wind Farm has been

reviewed, although the full

ES for Scout Moor was not

Paragraph 9.5.1

2 The ‘State of the UKs Birds’ analyses ongoing population trends. A total of 246 species are assigned to one

of three lists of Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC). These are the Red, Amber and Green lists.

Although the lists confer no legal status in themselves, they are useful in evaluating bird assemblages and

assessing the significance of effects and appropriate levels of mitigation that may be required when birds are

affected by development or other activity.

CPL PAGE 9-3



addressed

Relevant Section of

ES

address commonly

found species as well as

protected species.

available (despite several

requests to the developer

and local authority) nor

were any post-construction

monitoring data. A

summary of relevant data is

included within the baseline

section of this chapter.

Consideration should be

given to whether

ornithology could be

combined as a sub-set

of the ecology chapter

Birds are often the most

significant ecological issue

for wind farm developments

and it is standard practice

for a separate assessment

to be undertaken by an

ornithological specialist.

Chapter 8: Ecology

Chapter 9:

Ornithology

ES will have to justify

that it is too far from any

European site to have

any significant effects.

Consideration should be

given to a formal

screening exercise for

Appropriate Assessment

Potential effects upon

European sites designated

for their ornithological

interests have been

assessed within this

Chapter.

Paragraph 9.10.2

Natural England A clear study protocol

should be established at

the outset.

The scope of surveys was

determined during the early

stages of the project.

Paragraph 9.5.

Preliminary site

evaluation and desk

studies should inform

the field study

requirements

Field study requirements

were informed by a

preliminary site evaluation.

Paragraph 9.5.1

Study objectives should

be to identify species of

conservation importance

and vulnerable to wind

farm effects, to predict

numbers of birds likely

to be displaced or

disturbed or killed by

collision with rotors,

turbine towers or other

structures such as

overhead lines

Agreed, addressed in

survey and assessment

scope.

Paragraph 9.3

Where significant

cumulative effects are

likely an assessment of

these should be

included

Cumulative effect

assessment completed Paragraph 9.13

CPL PAGE 9-4



addressed

Relevant Section of

ES

72 hours of watches

required for each VP

when priority species

are present

A minimum of 72 hours

survey in total, from each of

four VPs, was completed.

Paragraph 9.5

Survey work should be

sufficient to understand

usage of areas in and

outside the boundary in

the pre breeding period

Access restrictions

prevented access to areas

outwith the site boundary,

although observations of

these areas were made

from within the site.

Comprehensive desk study

data were also obtained.

Paragraph 9.5

Common Bird Census

(CBC) methodology is

appropriate but 10 visits

will be required. Three

will not be sufficient

CBC is not appropriate for

wind farm proposals

situated in extensive upland

habitats, for which detailed

survey data are only

required for certain target

species (see Paragraph

9.5.3). In line with SNH

(2014) (Ref. 9-6) guidelines

Brown and Shepherd

surveys (Ref. 9-10) were

therefore completed,

although with three survey

visits (rather than the two

recommended within the

survey method) in 2012.

To update these surveys

three survey visits were

also completed in 2013.

The number of survey visits

was in line with the number

recommended within SNH

guidance at the time of the

surveys.

Paragraph 9.5.3

Study methods should

be tailored to the

ecology of the species

Agreed and addressed in

survey scope. Paragraph 9.3

Assessment should

include works linked to

creation, operation and

decommissioning of the

turbines, tracks and grid

connection route

The assessment within this

chapter of the ES includes

the assessment of effects

during construction,

operation and

decommissioning of

turbines and site

infrastructure and the likely

grid connection route.

Whilst the grid connection

will be subject to a separate

Paragraph 9.9

CPL PAGE 9-5



addressed

Relevant Section of

ES

application made by the

Distribution Network

Operator (DNO) the

potential effects of a grid

connection following the

route set out on Figure 4.1

is included in the chapter.

Survey and assessment

needs could change in

response to initial

findings, additional

proposals or changes to

guidance.

Survey guidance remained

the same throughout the

survey period. New SNH

guidance was issued in

August 2013 (and was

updated again in May

2014) (Ref. 9-6), although

surveys were complete at

this time.

Brown and Shepherd

surveys (Ref. 9-10) in 2013

were completed in

response to the

observations of curlew

within the Development

area in 2012 to provide

more data in relation to this

and other species.

Paragraph 9.3

Mitigation of collision

risk should focus on

design and siting of

turbines rather than

habitat enhancement

elsewhere

Potential ornithological

issues were considered at

the scheme design stage.

Paragraph 9.11

Greater

Manchester

Ecology Unit

Breeding and wintering

bird surveys should be

undertaken, particularly

peregrine, whooper

swan, golden plover,

pink-footed goose,

curlew, dunlin, merlin

and red kite

Breeding and wintering bird

VP surveys were

completed, as well as

breeding bird walkover

surveys. To complement

these site surveys, a

comprehensive desk study

was undertaken.

Paragraph 9.5

9.5 Methodology

9.5.1 Desk Study

9.12. A detailed ornithological desk study involving a search for designated sites in the vicinity of

the Development Area was undertaken. Information in relation to statutorily designated sites

within 10km and non-statutorily designated sites within 2km of the Development Area was

obtained from the Lancashire Environment Record Network (LERN) and Greater Manchester

Ecology Unit (GMEU). These search distances were deemed appropriate based on the

CPL PAGE 9-6


survey results and following review of SNH guidance on connectivity with designated sites

(SNH, 2012a) (Ref. 9-11). Species record requests were undertaken to help establish the

ornithological baseline condition of the Development and the surrounding area.

9.13. Requests for species data were submitted to the Local Raptor Study Group and the County

Bird Recorder. These potential data sources indicated that all relevant data were held by the

Greater Manchester Records Centre (GMRC), and suggested that this organisation was

contacted. Data were obtained from the GMRC for all target species records within the

Development and within 2km of the Development Area (see paragraph 9.5.1) and records of

Red and Amber list species within the Development and within 500m of the Development

Area.

9.14. Summary baseline data collected to inform the EIA for the nearby Scout Moor Wind Farm

(West Coast Energy Ltd, 2003) (Ref. 9-12) were also reviewed, although the value of these

data is limited due to their age (data were collected in 2002-03) and due to their relating to

the baseline condition prior to construction of Scout Moor Wind Farm.

9.5.2 Field Survey Methodologies

9.15. The primary survey period commenced in January 2012 and concluded in January 2013.

Further breeding bird walkovers surveys were completed between May and July 2013. The

methodologies utilised for the various field surveys are provided below. The design and

implementation of all ornithological surveys was completed by Ecology Matters Ltd.

9.5.3 Target Species

9.16. Target species were limited to protected species and other species of conservation concern

which are, as a result of their flight patterns or response behaviour, likely to be affected by

wind farms. Local circumstances may indicate that Vantage Point (VP) survey information

should also be obtained for other species, especially those of regional conservation concern;

such species are termed ‘secondary species’. Target and secondary species for this study

were as follows:

Table 9.2 Target and Secondary Species

Target Species Secondary Species

Herons Grouse Gulls

All geese and swans except Canada goose (Branta canadensis) and greylag goose (Anser anser)

Waders Raven (Corvus corax)

Twite (Carduelis flavirostris) Terns All other Wildfowl

Schedule 1 raptors/owls Nightjar (Caprimulgus

europaeus)

All other raptors

Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus)

9.5.4 Vantage Point Watches

9.17. VP watches (see Figure 2, Appendix 9.1 for VP locations) aimed to quantify the flight

activity of target and secondary species in the vicinity of the provisional turbine locations.

The methodology for such watches was derived from SNH guidance in place at the time of

survey (SNH 2005, updated in 2010) (Ref. 9-13). VP locations were selected to provide the

least restricted observation of the Development Area whilst minimising the potential effects

of disturbance on flight activity. Although VP1, VP2 and VP4 are situated within the site,

surveys were completed from within vehicles to reduce the disturbance risk and due to

health and safety considerations.

CPL PAGE 9-7


9.18. Activity patterns, and time spent flying within the proposed wind farm area were recorded.

The main purposes of VP watches are to:

Collect data on target species that will enable estimates to be made of:

o the time spent flying over the site;

o the relative use of different parts of the site; and

o the proportion of flying time spent within the provisional upper and lower height limits as

determined by the rotor diameter and rotor hub height.

Calculate an index of flight activity for other species (secondary species), within the site. A

summary of observations of secondary species was recorded at the end of each five-minute

period during VP watches, in accordance with the guidance (SNH, 2014) (Ref. 9-6).

Vantage Point Locations

9.19. At the time the surveys were undertaken the possible locations of turbines were not known

and consequently VPs were sited to provide the maximum feasible coverage of the

Development Area as a whole. As can be seen from Figure 9.2 VP3 therefore covers an

area in the south of the site, within which no turbines will be located.

9.20. Four VPs were deemed sufficient to provide appropriate coverage of the Development Area;

the locations of these VPs are shown on Figure 9.2 (Appendix 9.1). A computer generated

VP viewshed map (Figure 9.3, Appendix 9.1) has been produced to demonstrate visibility

from each VP. This map shows the visibility at ground level and at 25m (i.e. the base of the

rotor swept area) above ground level from each VP. Due to access restrictions, which

prevented VPs being located outwith the Development Area boundary, all VP surveys were

completed from within vehicles order to minimise the potential for observer disturbance to

influence bird activity within the site. This limited the choice of potential VP locations and as

such some parts of the Development Area were not able to be viewed from VP locations.

Survey Height Bands

9.21. All target species flights recorded during VP surveys were allocated to a height band.

Survey height bands (Table 9.3) were determined by Ecology Matters based upon the likely

turbine parameters at the time of the surveys and are provided within Table 9.3.

Table 9.3 VP Survey Height Band Summary

Height Band (metres above ground level)

High Medium Low

>150 40 - 150 <40

Observations

9.22. 36 hours of VP survey were completed from each of four VPs during the 2012 breeding

season (i.e. April to August). During the non-breeding period (i.e. January to March 2012

and September 2012 to January 2013) 36 hours of survey were completed form VP1, 35

hours from VP2, and 39 hours from both VP3 and VP4. Full details of all survey dates,

times, weather conditions and surveyors are provided in Appendix 9.2. All VP data were

collected in a format suitable for subsequent collision risk analysis, if required. These data

are included as Appendix 9.2.

9.23. Observations of adult breeding display flights and the flight behaviour of dispersing young

were recorded if observed. When engaged in such behaviours, birds are considered to be

particularly susceptible to collision.

CPL PAGE 9-8


9.5.5 Breeding Bird Walkover Surveys

9.24. Breeding bird walkover surveys were undertaken during 2012 and 2013.

9.25. In 2012, two walkover surveys adhering to the Brown and Shepherd Upland Wader Survey

Method (Brown and Shepherd, 1993) (Ref. 9-10) were completed on 30th April 2012 and 17

th

May 2012. Two follow-up walkover surveys were then undertaken on 9th August 2012 and

21st August 2012

9.26. In 2013, three survey visits were completed with visits on 1st May, 4

th June and 1

st July. This

is slightly later than the recommended survey period of April to June because the spring was

cold and many species were late returning to their breeding grounds.

9.27. During these walkover surveys all parts of the Development Area were walked to within

100m and all birds observed were recorded and behaviours indicative of breeding or

potential breeding were noted.

9.28. In line with the Brown and Shepherd (1993) (Ref. 9-10) method, waders were considered to

represent breeding birds if they were observed displaying or singing, if nest, eggs or young

were located, if adults repeatedly alarm called, if they performed distraction displays or were

observed in territory disputes. Other records were considered to be non-breeding birds,

failed breeders or birds loafing, feeding or on passage to other areas. All non-waders

observed within suitable breeding habitat were considered to represent breeding birds if a

nest, eggs or young were located, if they were observed displaying or singing, or were

observed in territory disputes. Birds recorded in the same location on at least two visits were

also considered to represent breeding birds, in line with Common Birds Census (CBC)

methodology (Marchant, 1983) (Ref. 9-14).

9.5.6 Collision Risk Modelling

9.29. Collision Risk Modelling (CRM) was undertaken for those species with in excess of 200 flight

seconds occurring with the potential collision risk zone (i.e. at collision risk height and within

the turbine envelope3 (see Table 9.9)). CRM was therefore undertaken in relation to

peregrine, kestrel, golden plover and curlew (Numenius arquata). Calculations and details of

assumptions used in the models are included in Appendix 9.4. CRM was not undertaken

for other target species recorded as flight activity within the collision risk zone was very low

and as such collision risk is very unlikely to be significant and detailed modelling was not

considered necessary.

9.30. During VP survey, flights were logged in three height bands, as detailed within Table 9.3.

These survey height bands were determined by Ecology Matters based upon the envisaged

turbine dimensions at that time. However since that time the candidate turbine has been

altered and the rotor swept area of the turbine included within this application extends

considerably below the base of the Medium survey band.

9.31. Because of this, a precautionary approach has had to be taken whereby birds logged within

both the Low and Medium height bands are considered to be at risk of collision with turbines.

The turbine dimensions included within the model has a maximum tip height of 125m and the

lowest point of the rotor swept area will be 25m above the ground. 38% of curlew and

kestrel 38 flights, 64% of peregrine flights and 81% of golden plover included within the

collision risk model as ‘at risk’ occurred within the Low survey band. Although detailed

information on flight heights are not available it is likely that a number of these flights

occurred below 25m (and therefore below the collision risk zone). Consequently the collision

risk model is likely to produce a significant overestimation of collision risk.

9.32. As bird detection rates decrease with distance from the observer, analysis was restricted to

2km from the observer (in line with SNH guidance). Due to the open nature of the site it is

considered unlikely that significant numbers of target species’ flights will have been

overlooked within this distance.

3 Defined as all areas within a 200m radius of the outer turbine locations

CPL PAGE 9-9


9.33. CRM was carried out using the SNH Collision Risk Model (Ref. 9-15), as described in Band

et al. (2007) (Ref. 9-16) based on flight data collected during VP surveys, bird biometrics

(taken from Provan and Whitfield (2007) (Ref. 9-17) and Cramp & Simmons (2004) (Ref. 9-

18)), flight speeds (taken from Alerstam & Christie (1982) (Ref. 9-19) and Cooke (1933)

(Ref. 9-20)), and based on the candidate turbine dimensions provided by Coronation Power.

9.34. There are two forms of the model:

Non-directional - for those species that move randomly within the proposed development;

and

Directional - for those that move through the proposed development, generally in the same

direction on a regular basis (i.e. flight lines are predictable). Examples include regular

diurnal movements of geese and divers (Gavia spp.) between specific feeding and

roosting/nesting areas and migratory bird movements in spring and autumn,

9.35. For all species modelled in this assessment the non-directional model was considered most

appropriate, as the flight lines recorded (see relevant figures in Appendix 9.1) do not

indicate any regular flight paths.

9.36. CRM calculation occurs in three stages. Firstly an estimation of the number of birds that fly

through the rotor swept area is produced and secondly the proportion of these birds which

would suffer collision is assessed. By combining the two stages, it is possible to estimate

collision mortality in the absence of any avoiding action by individual birds. Lastly,

application of avoidance rates to the estimated collision mortality provides a more realistic

estimate of collision risk, although it is accepted that the model relies on relatively simplistic

assumptions of bird behaviour and therefore contains some inherent bias. Avoidance rates

followed current SHN guidance (SNH, 2010) (Ref. 9-13).

9.5.7 Assessment Methodology

9.37. The IEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (IEEM, 2006)

(Ref. 9-5) (henceforth referred to as the IEEM guidelines) form the basis of the assessment

presented in this chapter. These guidelines, combined with relevant SNH guidance (SNH,

2006) (Ref. 9-8), set out a process of identifying the value of each ecological receptor and

then characterising the effects that are predicted, before discussing the effects on the

integrity or conservation status of the receptor, proposed mitigation and residual effects.

9.38. The initial action for any assessment is to determine which features should be subject to

detailed assessment. The ornithological receptors to be the subject of more detailed

assessment should be of sufficient value that effects may be significant in terms of either

legislation or policy. The receptors should also be vulnerable to significant effects arising

from the development. Such species are listed in SNH guidance.

9.39. For this assessment, effects are assessed in detail only for receptors of at least district

value, those included on the SNH (2006) (Ref. 9-8) list of species of conservation concern

potentially subject to effects from wind farm developments (for which sufficient flight

lines/records were generated) or where a breach of legislation could occur (e.g. damage to

active nests).

9.5.8 Determining Value

9.40. The IEEM guidelines recommend that the value of ecological receptors or features is

determined based on a geographic frame of reference. For this assessment the following

geographic frame of reference is used:

International;

National (i.e. UK);

Regional (i.e. Southern Pennines4);

4 As defined in the Natural England National Character Area profile – 3.6 Southern Pennines

CPL PAGE 9-10


District (i.e. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council/Rossendale Borough Council area)

Local (i.e. within around 5km); and

Less than Local.

9.5.9 Valuing Species

9.41. In assigning a level of value to a species, it is necessary to consider its distribution and

status, including a consideration of trends based on available historical records. Rarity is an

important consideration because of its relationship with threat and vulnerability although

since some species are inherently rare, it is necessary to look at rarity in the context of

status. A species that is rare and declining should be assigned a higher level of importance

than one that is rare with a stable population.

9.42. Reference is also made to Section 41 (of the NERC Act 2006) (Ref. 9-4) Priority Species

and Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) (Ref. 9-21) (as included within the Greater

Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan and Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan) (Ref. 9-22)

Priority Species and other indicators of conservation status as appropriate. It should be

noted however that although a species may be considered a Priority Species for

conservation action, many such species are still relatively common and widespread and BAP

priority status is due to recent declines and does not necessarily imply any specific level of

importance.

9.43. Where appropriate, the value of species populations is also determined by using the

standard one percent criterion method (Holt et al., 2009) (Ref. 9-22). Using this method the

presence of greater than one percent of the international population of a species is

considered internationally important, greater than one percent of the national population is

considered nationally important, etc.

9.5.10 Predicting and Characterising Effects

9.44. In accordance with IEEM guidelines, when describing effects reference is made to the

following:

Confidence in predictions, i.e. the level of certainty that an effect will occur as predicted,

based on professional judgement and where possible evidence from other schemes – this is

based on a three point scale; certain/near certain, probable and uncertain/unlikely;

Magnitude – i.e. the size of an effect in quantitative terms where possible;

Extent – i.e. the area over which an effect occurs;

Duration – i.e. the time for which an effect is expected to last;

Reversibility – i.e. a permanent effect is one that is irreversible within a reasonable timescale

or for which there is no reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse it. A short term

effect is one from which a spontaneous recovery is possible; and

Timing and frequency – i.e. whether effects occur during critical life stages or seasons.

9.45. Both direct and indirect effects are considered: direct effects are changes that are directly

attributable to a defined action, e.g. through collision with turbines. Indirect effects are

attributable to an action, but which affect ecological resources through effects on an

intermediary ecosystem, process or receptor, such as effects on bird species using adjacent

habitats due to hydrological changes.

9.5.11 Significance Criteria

9.46. In accordance with the IEEM guidelines, a significant effect, in ecological terms, is defined as

an effect (whether negative or positive) on the integrity5 of a defined site or ecosystem

5 Integrity is the coherence of ecological structure and function, across a site’s whole area, that enables it

to sustain a habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of species.

CPL PAGE 9-11


and/or the conservation status6 of habitats or species within a given geographical area,

including cumulative and in-combination effects.

9.47. The approach adopted in this assessment aims to determine an effect to be ecologically

significant or not on the basis of a discussion of the factors that characterise it, i.e. the

ecological significance of an effect is not dependent on the value of the feature in question.

However, as noted above, detailed assessment is only required for features of sufficient

value that effects may be significant in terms of either legislation or policy (i.e. significant in

terms of the EIA Regulations). Any ecologically significant effect identified by the

assessment is therefore potentially significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.

9.48. The value of a feature that will be significantly affected is used to determine the geographical

scale at which the effect is significant, e.g. an ecologically significant effect on a feature of

regional importance would be considered to represent a significant effect at a regional level.

This in turn should be used to determine the implications in terms of legislation, policy and/or

development control.

9.49. Any significant effects remaining after mitigation (the residual effects), together with an

assessment of the likelihood of success of the mitigation, are the factors to be considered

against legislation, policy and development control in determining the application.

9.5.12 Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancement

9.50. It is important as part of any environmental impact assessment, wherever possible, to clearly

differentiate between mitigation, compensation and enhancement and these terms are

defined here as follows:

Mitigation is used to refer to measures to avoid, reduce or remedy a specific negative effect

in situ. Mitigation is only required for negative effects assessed as being significant or where

required to ensure compliance with legislation;

Compensation is used to refer to measures proposed in relation to specific negative effects

but where it is not possible to fully mitigate for negative effects in situ. Compensation is only

required for negative effects assessed as being significant or where required to ensure

compliance with legislation; and

Enhancement is used to refer to measures that will result in positive ecological effects but

which do not relate to specific significant negative effects or where measures are required to

ensure legal compliance.

9.6 Baseline Conditions

9.6.1 Desk Study

9.51. A full list of statutory and non-statutory sites is included within Chapter 8: Ecology. Details

of statutorily designated sites within 10km of the Development Area, for which birds form a

reason for designation, are provided in Table 9.4. These sites are shown on Figure 8.1a.

6 Conservation status for habitats is determined by the sum of the influences acting on the habitat and its

typical species that may affect its long-term distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term

survival of its typical species within a given geographical area. Conservation status for species is

determined by the sum of influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term

distribution and abundance of its populations within a given geographical area.

CPL PAGE 9-12


Table 9.4 Statutorily designated sites within 10km of the Development area, designated wholly or partially

for ornithological interest

Site Name and

Designation

Approximate

Distance and

Direction from

Site Boundary

Site Description/Reason for Notification

Internationally Designated Sites

South Pennine

Moors Phase 2

SPA

7.5km E This site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive

(79/409/EEC) (Ref. 9-1) by supporting populations of

European importance of the following species listed on

Annex I of the Directive:

During the breeding season

Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria): 752 pairs

representing at least 3.3% of the breeding population in

Great Britain (Count as at 1990).

Merlin (Falco columbarius): 77 pairs representing at least

5.9% of the breeding population in Great Britain.

Peregrine (Falco peregrinus): 16 pairs representing at

least 1.4% of the breeding population in Great Britain.

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus): 25 pairs representing

at least 2.5% of the breeding population in Great Britain

This site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive

(79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European

importance of the following migratory species:

During the breeding season;

Dunlin (Calidris alpina): 140 pairs representing at least

1.3% of the breeding Baltic/UK/Ireland population

Nationally Designated Sites

South Pennine

Moors SSSI

7.5km E This site forms part of the Southern Pennines lying

between likely in the north and the Peak District National

Park boundary in the south. This mosaic of habitats

supports a moorland breeding bird assemblage which,

because of the range of species and number of breeding

birds it contains, is of regional and national importance.

The large numbers of breeding merlin, golden plover and

twite are of international importance.

9.52. Details of non-statutory designated sites were obtained from Lancashire Environment

Record Network (LERN) and Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU). Sites within 2km of

the Development Area for which birds form a reason for designation are listed in Table 9.5.

The locations of these sites are shown in Figure 8.1b.

CPL PAGE 9-13


Table 9.5 Non-Statutorily designated within 2km of the Development Area, designated wholly or partially for

ornithological interest

Site Name and

Designation7

Approximate

Distance and

Direction from

Site Boundary

Site Description/Reason for Notification

Knowl Moor SBI Overlaps western

section of

development area

An extensive area of moorland which supports important

upland breeding birds.

The SBI includes the breeding territories of specialist

moorland birds including red grouse and waders such as

curlew, golden plover and lapwing. Other breeding birds

include kestrel, wheatear, skylark and a number of birds

of prey.

Cowpe Moss and

Brandwood Moor

BHS

Overlaps northern

section of

development area

The site is important as a regular breeding area for

dunlin, golden plover and twite. It also supports a

significant breeding bird assemblage, with curlew, red

grouse, redshank, ring ouzel, snipe and wheatear.

Further bird interest is added with the presence of

skylark and meadow pipit.

Lee Quarry BHS 0.4km NE The cliffs support regular breeding pairs of raven and

peregrine falcon.

Scout Moor BHS 0.9km W The site comprises an extensive area of moorland,

including Whittle Hill, Higher Hill and Fecit Hill. The

moor is of considerable ornithological interest.

9.53. To augment the collected survey data, species records data was also obtained from the

Greater Manchester Records Centre. Breeding season (defined as 15th March to 31

st

August) records within the last five years (i.e. since 2009) of Target Species within the

Development/2km buffer zone are summarised in Table 9.6.

Table 9.6 Desk study results - target species records within the Development area and 2km buffer

Species Number of

Locations

Recorded

at

Most

recent

record

Approximate

distance from

/infrastructure

of closest

record

Conservation

Status

Comment

Common

sandpiper

(Actitis

hypoleucos)

4 May 2013 Potentially

within

Development

Area

Amber List Confirmed breeding

in SD81N in 2011,

which includes the

Naden Reservoirs

which is the likely

breeding area.

Probable breeding

in SD81T (which

includes Spring Mill

Reservoir).

Curlew 4 April 2013 Potentially

within

Section 41

Amber List

One confirmed

breeding record

7 BHS = Biological Heritage Site

SBI = Site of Biological Importance

CPL PAGE 9-14


Species Number of

Locations

Recorded

at

Most

recent

record

Approximate

distance from

/infrastructure

of closest

record

Conservation

Status

Comment

Development

Area

(>1,500m from

Development area

in 2011). Probable

breeding at three

sites, including

within the

Development Area.

Dunlin 3 May 2011 Potentially

within

Development

Area

Red List One confirmed

breeding record

(Nest containing

eggs in 2011).

Golden plover 4 June

2010

Potentially

within

Development

Area

Annex 1

Amber List

One confirmed

breeding record

(2010) in SD81I

(>750m from

Development Area,

one pair)). Two

probable breeding

records, one of

which (two pairs)

occurred within the

site/500m buffer

(SD81P) (May

2010).

Grey heron

(Ardea

cinerea)

12 May 2013 Potentially in

flight within

Development

Area.

NA All breeding records

>500m from

Development Area.

Kestrel 11 May 2011 Potentially

within

Development

Area

Amber List One confirmed

breeding record, at

SD81X (>800m

from Development

Area) in 2011. Two

probable breeding

records; SD71Y,

(>800m from

Development Area

in 2009) and SD81I

(>1,500m from

Development Area

in 2011).

Lapwing

(Vanellus

vanellus)

4 June

2010

Potentially

within

Development

Area

Section 41

Red List

LBAP

(Lancashire)

Four confirmed

breeding records.

All of one pair

except three pairs

at Brownhouse

Wham Reservoir

CPL PAGE 9-15


Species Number of

Locations

Recorded

at

Most

recent

record

Approximate

distance from

/infrastructure

of closest

record

Conservation

Status

Comment

over 1km from

Development Area.

Little ringed

plover

(Charadrius

dubius)

1 April 2011 >500m Schedule 1

Amber List

Probable breeding

within SD81N at

Naden Reservoirs.

Oystercatcher

(Haematopus

ostralegus)

3 May 2013 >500m Amber List Probable breeding

during 2010, 2011

and 2012 at the

Naden Reservoirs.

Peregrine 3 March

2012

Potentially

within

Development

area, breeding

records

>500m.

Schedule 1

Annex 1

A number of pairs

breed within 2km,

using different nest

sites each year.

Precise nest

location in 2014 not

available at the time

of writing.

Red grouse 3 June

2011

Potentially

within

Development

Area

Section 41

Amber List

No confirmed

breeding records.

One probable

breeding record

within SD81I

(>1,500m from

Development Area

in 2011).

Snipe 6 June

2011

Potentially

within

Development

Area.

Amber List No confirmed

breeding records.

Three probable

breeding records,

all >500m from

Development Area.

9.54. Records of additional Red and Amber List species of Conservation Concern within the

Development Area/500m buffer zone were also obtained. Breeding season records are

summarised in Table 9.7. There were no records of Red or Amber List species (with the

exception of lapwing, which is included in Table 9.6) within the search area during the non-

breeding season.

CPL PAGE 9-16


Table 9.7 Desk study results - Red and Amber List species records within 500m of the Development Area

Species Breeding Season

Number of

records

Maximum number of

birds recorded

Most recent

record

Red List Species

Grasshopper warbler (Locustella

naevia) 1 2

July 2010

House sparrow (Passer

domesticus) 1 39

July 2009

Lesser redpoll (Carduelis cabaret) 4 4 July 2011

Linnet (Carduelis cannabina) 10 7 July 2011

Skylark 11 20 May 2011

Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 1 9 May 2009

Amber List Species

Bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) 1 2 July 2011

Dunnock (Prunella modularis) 3 3 July 2011

Green woodpecker (Picus viridis) 1 2 April 2010

Grey wagtail (Motacilla cinerea) 1 1 July 2013

House martin (Delichon urbicum) 1 6 July 2009

Meadow pipit 18 28 July 2013

Mistle thrush (Turdus viscivorus) 2 2 June 2010

Reed bunting (Emberiza

schoeniclus)

8 11 July 2013

Swallow (Hirundo rustica) 7 18 July 2011

Swift (Apus apus) 1 3 May 2009

Wheatear 14 8 June 2013

Willow warbler (Phylloscopus

trochilus)

8 6 July 2013

9.55. Breeding bird surveys carried out in 2003 for the Scout Moor Wind Farm EIA recorded 2

pairs of curlew, 5 pairs of golden plover, 2 pairs of dunlin and 2 possible snipe pairs.

Peregrine and kestrel were also recorded flying over but were not thought to be breeding on

the site. Precise locations for these records are not given but they are thought to relate to

the Higher Hill and Knowl Moor areas, over 1km from the Development Area.

9.56. Wintering bird surveys carried out during winter 2002-03 for the Scout Moor Wind Farm EIA

regularly recorded relatively small flocks of golden plover (peak count 32) and small numbers

of kestrel, red grouse and snipe. Jack snipe and dunlin were recorded on single dates only.

All of these records occurred to the west of the Development Area, with a small number of

the records within 1km.

CPL PAGE 9-17


9.6.2 Survey Data

9.57. Results of the ornithological surveys undertaken by Ecology Matters during 2012 and 2013

are provided in this section.

Vantage Point Surveys Results

9.58. During breeding season VP surveys 70 target species flight lines were logged, by ten target

species. During non-breeding season VP surveys 21 flight lines by seven target species

were recorded. All logged target species flight lines are shown on Figures 9.4 – 9.13, within

Appendix 9.1. Within these figures all flight lines have been given a unique flying bout

reference, this should be cross-referenced with the VP data included within Appendix 9.2.

Table 9.8 Summary of target species records during VP surveys

Species

Breeding season Non-breeding season

Flight lines

recorded

Maximum

number of birds

observed

concurrently

Flight lines

recorded

Maximum number

of birds observed

concurrently

Common

sandpiper 1 1 0 NA

Curlew 37 3 9 2

Golden plover 8 19 1 3

Grey heron 1 1 1 3

Kestrel 15 1 3 1

Lapwing 4 2 1 2

Marsh harrier

(Circus

aeruginosus)

1 1 0 NA

Merlin 1 1 0 NA

Peregrine 1 2 5 1

Snipe 1 1 1 1

9.59. The flight line data were analysed using GIS to determine the total number of flight lines and

bird seconds (where flights involved more than one bird, flight time was multiplied by the

number of birds involved) that occurred within the potential collision risk zone (CRZ) (i.e.

within the Low and Medium survey bands and within the turbine envelope (i.e. within 200m

of turbine locations)). The results of these analyses are presented within the below table.

Table 9.9 Target species flight time within CRZ

Species Total number of

flight lines

Number of flight

lines within the

CRZ

Bird seconds

within CRZ

Common sandpiper 1 1 8

Curlew 46 16 366

Golden plover 9 3 257

Grey heron 1 0 NA

CPL PAGE 9-18


Species Total number of

flight lines

Number of flight

lines within the

CRZ

Bird seconds

within CRZ

Kestrel 18 15 1,657

Lapwing 5 1 22

Marsh harrier 1 1 55

Merlin 1 0 NA

Peregrine 6 5 209

Snipe 2 2 80

Breeding Bird Walkover Surveys

9.60. During 2012, three Amber List species and two Red List species were either confirmed, or

considered likely to have bred within or adjacent to the Development Area. The territories of

these species are shown on Figure 9.14 (Appendix 9.1). Between three and seven curlew

(Red Listed) held territory within the survey area. One further Red List species, lapwing (one

pair), is also thought to have bred within the survey area. Territories of three Amber List

species were recorded within the survey area; skylark (58 territories within the Development

Area, 12 territories off-site), meadow pipit (29 territories within the Development Area, 20

territories off-site) and wheatear (single territories within the Development Area and off-site).

During these surveys the following target species were also recorded:

Twite – a flock of 16 birds were recorded in the south of the Development Area, to the west

of Whimsy Hill on 21st August 2012.

Golden plover – one recorded at Top of Leach approximately 100m to the north of the

Development Area on 17th May 2012.

Kestrel – one female in the south of the Development Area on 17th May 2012, one juvenile

recorded near Top of Leach to the north of the Development Area on 9th August 2012 and a

female in the south of the Development Area, to the west of Whimsy Hill on 21st August

2012.

9.61. During 2013 (Appendix 9.3) a total of ten species were recorded, just three of which

(meadow pipit, skylark and wheatear) are thought to have bred within the survey area, with

one further probable breeder (reed bunting). No curlew bred on the site although small

numbers were present and one possible territory was identified at Bagden Hillocks in the

centre of the Development Area. It is thought the much lower numbers could have been due

to recent burning across the northern part of the site, although it is also possible the fall in

numbers could indicate a longer term decline.

9.6.3 Information Gaps

9.62. Potential gaps in the survey data, when compared against the requirements of SNH (2014)

guidance, are discussed below.

9.63. Walkover surveys were restricted to the Development Area, due to access restrictions

outside this area and the number of surveys during the appropriate time period (i.e. April to

late June) were fewer than recommended in SNH (2014) guidance (Ref. 9-6), i.e. three

rather than four visits (although the number of visits was in line with guidance in place at the

time of survey (SNH, 2005, revised 2010) (Ref. 9-13)). With respect to the spatial coverage

of the surveys some observations of areas outwith the site boundary were made from within

the Development Area. Furthermore, a proportion of the 500m buffer zone from the turbine

envelope, notably to the south and west, is located within the Development Area and was

therefore covered by the surveys. In order to address this potential gap, records were

CPL PAGE 9-19


obtained from GMRC (see Paragraph 9.5.1). Data provided by GMRC suggest that the

area is well-recorded and as such the survey data collected by Ecology Matters and the

existing records supplied by GMRC combined are considered adequate to inform the

assessment. With respect to the number of survey visits, the completion of surveys during

two breeding seasons (see Paragraph 9.5.2) offsets any shortfall in coverage compared

with 2014 SNH guidelines. Consequently the walkover survey data are considered adequate

to inform the assessment.

9.64. No species-specific raptor surveys were completed outwith the site boundary due to access

restrictions. To compensate for this potential data gap records of target raptor species within

2km were obtained from GMRC (see Paragraph 9.5.1). This identified one peregrine

territory within 2km. Due to the paucity of target raptor species’ flight lines logged during the

VP surveys, the lack of survey records of juvenile birds (with the exception of peregrine) and

the lack of existing records for other target species in what appears to be a well-recorded

area, it is considered unlikely that any further target raptor species territories are present

within 2km of the Development Area. As such, the absence of species specific raptor

surveys beyond the Development Area boundary is not considered to represent a significant

information gap.

9.65. The requisite amount of VP surveys were undertaken during each survey period from each

VP, with the exception of VP2 during the non-breeding period, where only 35 survey hours

were completed. This is only one hour less than the minimum required by SNH however and

taking into account the number of flight lines recorded from this and the other VPs during the

non-breeding period, and the diversity of species observed, this is not considered a

significant information gap.

9.7 Valued Ornithological Receptors

9.66. This section evaluates the nature conservation importance of the bird species present within

the Development Area boundary and surrounding area, as well as the designated sites for

birds within the wider area. Species recorded during surveys which form qualifying features

of, or are a reason for the designation of nature conservation sites are assessed in terms of

their importance and in terms of the designated sites population and in their own right.

9.67. Species not included within nearby designations are assessed in terms of their importance in

an international, national, regional, district, local and less than local context.

9.8 Sites Designated for their Ornithological Interest

9.8.1 Statutorily Designated Sites

South Pennine Moors SPA

9.68. The South Pennine Moors SPA is located approximately 7.5km east of the Development

Area. This site is of international importance and the populations of the qualifying species

are therefore also considered to be internationally important. The importance of the

Development Area and immediate surrounding area for these SPA qualifying species is

evaluated below.

9.69. Of those species included within the SPA citation the following species were recorded

during surveys, or records within 2km of the site were obtained during the desk study:

Merlin

9.70. During field surveys, one merlin flight line was recorded, with no further records. During the

breeding season merlin have a core foraging range of up to 5km from a nest site (SNH,

2012) (Ref. 9-11). Taking this into account, along with the distance of the Development area

from the SPA there is not considered to be a functional link between the Development and

the SPA merlin population

CPL PAGE 9-20


Peregrine

9.71. During field surveys, six peregrine flight lines were recorded, with no further records. The

desk study confirmed that several pairs of peregrine nest within 2km of the Development

Area and the flight lines recorded during the field surveys are most likely to relate to these

birds. During the breeding season peregrine have a core foraging range of 2km from a nest

site (SNH, 2012a) (Ref. 9-11). Taking this into account, along with the distance of the

Development Area from the SPA there is not considered to be a functional link between the

Development and the SPA peregrine population.

Golden plover

9.72. During field surveys, nine golden plover flight lines were recorded, with one further record

(one bird) to the north of the Development Area during a walkover survey on 17th May 2012.

Flight lines of this species were logged on 29th March 2012 (one flight line, two birds), 18

th

April 2012 (four flight lines, maximum of 19 birds), 9th August 2012 (three flight lines,

maximum of two birds) and 5th January 2013 (one flight line, three birds). Just three flight

lines occurring within the CRZ (257 bird seconds in total).

9.73. During the breeding season golden plover have a core foraging range of 3km from a nest

site (SNH, 2012) (Ref. 9-11). It is possible that the birds recorded during spring and autumn

may be birds that breed in the SPA, although records were infrequent and the number of

birds logged low. Taking this into account, along with the distance of the Development Area

from the SPA there is not considered to be a significant functional link between the

Development and the SPA golden plover population.

Dunlin

9.74. Dunlin were not recorded during field surveys, although there are two breeding season

records from 2011 of up to five birds present, potentially within the Development Area. This

species has a core range of up to 500m from nest sites (SNH, 2012) (Ref. 9-11) and taking

into account, along with the distance of the Development from the SPA there is not

considered to be a functional link between the Development and the SPA dunlin population.

9.75. Based on the above it is concluded that there is no functional link between the Development

Area and the South Pennine Moors SPA and therefore there is no likely significant effect on

the SPA. This designated site is therefore not considered further within this chapter.

South Pennine Moors SSSI

9.76. The South Pennine Moors SSSI is located approximately 7.5km east of the Development

Area. This site is of national importance and the populations of the qualifying species are

therefore also considered to be nationally important.

9.77. The sole species included within the citation of the South Pennine Moors SSSI that is not a

qualifying feature of the SPA (which are discussed above) is twite. There was a single

record of this species during a walkover survey on 21st August 2012, when 16 birds were

observed within the site to the west of Whimsy Hill and no records were provided during the

desk study. Passerine species have a small core foraging range away from the nest site,

and consequently no effects upon the SSSI population of twite is considered likely due to the

distance of the SSSI from the Development Area.

9.78. It is concluded that there is no functional link between the Development Area and the South

Pennine Moors SSSI and therefore there is no likely significant effect on the SSSI. This

designated site is therefore not considered further within this chapter.

9.8.2 Non-Statutorily Designated Sites

9.79. Non-statutory sites are designated at a local authority level and for the purposes of this

assessment are considered to be of district importance.

CPL PAGE 9-21


Knowl Moor SBI

9.80. This SBI is partly located within the western portion of the Development Area and in

ornithological terms is designated due to the important populations of red grouse, curlew,

golden plover and lapwing as well as kestrel, wheatear and meadow pipit that it supports.

9.81. There were no records of red grouse during site surveys, and no records within 500m of the

Development Area were obtained during the desk study. However, all of the other species

listed as interest features for the SBI were recorded during the survey and/or records for the

Development Area and/or relevant buffers were provided during the desk study. As such, a

functional link between the Development Area and the interest features, apart from red

grouse (which is excluded from detailed assessment), of Knowl Moor SBI is likely and

detailed assessment is required.

Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS

9.82. This BHS site is partly overlaps the north of the Development Area. The site is important as

a regular breeding area for dunlin, golden plover and twite. It also supports a significant

breeding bird assemblage, with curlew, red grouse, redshank (Tringa totanus), ring ouzel

(Turdus torquatus), snipe and wheatear. Further bird interest is added with the presence of

skylark and meadow pipit.

9.83. All of these species, with the exception of redshank and ring ouzel, were recorded during

field surveys and/or records within the Development Area and/or relevant buffers were

obtained during the desk study. As such, a functional link between the Development Area

and the interest features, apart from redshank and ring ouzel (which are excluded from

detailed assessment), of Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS is likely and detailed

assessment is required.

Lee Quarry BHS

9.84. Located 0.4km to northeast of the Development Area, Lee Quarry BHS is designated in part

due to the presence of breeding pairs of peregrine and raven, although the desk study did

not yield any recent records of peregrine nesting in this area. Raven was recorded

infrequently during VP surveys (as a secondary species) with just nine records and a

maximum of two birds recorded concurrently.

9.85. Due to the limited number of raven records during surveys of the Development Area and the

recent absence of peregrine from this site a functional link between the Development Area

and the interest features is considered unlikely this site is therefore not considered further

within this chapter.

Scout Moor BHS

9.86. Scout Moor BHS is situated 0.9km west of the Development Area and is considered to have

significant ornithological interest (although no further details are provided in its citation. Due

to the distance of this designated site from the Development Area most bird species within

the BHS are unlikely to be directly affected by the wind farm and given also the lack of

specific information about its ornithological interest features this site is not considered further

within this chapter.

Species

9.87. A number of target species (as defined previously) were recorded during the surveys and/or

have been recorded on or close to the site previously (as evidenced by data obtained by the

desk study). The importance of the Development Area and relevant buffer zones for these

species is evaluated separately for each species below. The Development Area and

relevant buffer zones are not likely to be of greater than local importance for any non-target

species and these species are therefore not specifically evaluated.

CPL PAGE 9-22


9.88. Those target species that were solely recorded as overflying birds for less than 200 flight

seconds during the entire survey period and for which there are no existing breeding records

in the data provided by GMRC, i.e. species making occasional, transitory use of the site only,

have not been included within this assessment as the study area is considered to be of less

than local importance for these species. This includes grey heron, marsh harrier and merlin.

Dunlin, snipe and red grouse were recorded as possible breeding species within the tetrad

that the Development Area occupies in 2011; these species are therefore included in the

evaluation, despite not being recorded during surveys in 2012-13. Little ringed plover was

recorded >500m from the Development Area in 2011. However, with no desk study records

of this species since, no records during the survey period and taking into account the

distance of the possible nest site from the Development Area and the lack of suitable habitat

for this species within or adjacent to the Development Area this species is excluded from the

evaluation.

Kestrel

9.89. Kestrel is a UK Amber List species.

9.90. During VP surveys 18 kestrel flight lines were recorded, 15 of which occurred during the

breeding season with all records being of single birds. During walkover surveys there were

four observations of this species, although breeding was not recorded. The desk study did

not identify any confirmed breeding records within Development Area/2km buffer zone with

two probable breeding records, the closest of which was >800m from the Development Area

in 2009.

9.91. Based on data from 2009 (Musgrove et al., 2013) (Ref. 9-24), the total number of pairs

thought to reside in Britain during the summer is 45,000. The Regional/District/Local

population sizes are not known, although it is unlikely that the relevant districts support less

than 100 pairs. Adopting a precautionary approach and taking into account the number of

flight lines, the site is considered to potentially be of district importance for kestrel.

Peregrine

9.92. Peregrine is included on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended),

Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive and is included on the SNH (2006) list of species

potentially subject to effects from wind farms.

9.93. During field surveys, six peregrine flight lines were recorded, with no further records. The

desk study confirmed that peregrine nests within 2km for the Development Area and the

flight lines recorded during the field surveys are most likely to relate to these birds. To

protect the locations of the nests of this species, the breeding locations during the last five

years, as revealed by the desk study data, are included within confidential Appendix 9.5.

These pairs use different nest sites each year, the closest of which identified within the desk

study is about 500m from the nearest proposed infrastructure.

9.94. The breeding population of the UK was considered to be 1,402 pairs in 2000 (Banks et al.,

2003) (Ref. 9-25), although the population has continued to rise since this time and the UK

population is now thought to be at an all-time high (Balmer et al., 2013) (Ref. 9-26). In 2011

there were 457 confirmed pairs of peregrines in England (Holling et al., 2013) (Ref. 9-27);

the population of the South Pennines or Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council/Rossendale

Borough Council area are not known.

9.95. Although the population of the South Pennines is not known, it is unlikely to exceed 100

pairs and applying the 1% principle the Development Area and 2km buffer zone is

considered to be of regional importance for peregrine.

CPL PAGE 9-23


Red Grouse

9.96. Red grouse is included on Section 41 of the NERC Act and is a UK Amber List species.

Based on data from 2009, the total number of pairs thought to reside in Britain during the

summer is 230,000 (Musgrove et al., 2013) (Ref. 9-24).

9.97. There were no records of this species during site surveys. The desk study yielded records of

this species at four locations with no confirmed breeding records and one probable breeding

record >1,500m from the Development Area. Taking into account the paucity of records, the

Development Area/500m buffer zone is considered to be of less than local importance for

red grouse.

Golden Plover

9.98. Golden plover is included on Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive and is an Amber List species

of Conservation Concern.

9.99. During VP surveys nine golden plover flight lines were recorded, three during the breeding

season. There was one record during walkover surveys at Top of Leach c.100m from the

Development Area. During the desk study, records of this species occurred at four locations,

although there were no confirmed breeding records. Two pairs were recorded in 2010 and

recorded as probable breeders (pair in suitable nesting habitat in SD81P which includes the

north of the Development Area).

9.100. The UK breeding population (2009) is thought to be approximately 49,000 pairs (Musgrove

et al., 2013) (Ref. 9-24). The Regional/District/Local population sizes are not known,

although it is known that the South Pennines Moor SPA population is 792 pairs. As the birds

recorded in 2010 were only probable breeders (i.e. a pair in suitable nesting habitat), due to

the age of this record, the absence of subsequent records and no breeding records during

surveys this species is not considered to be present as a breeding species within the

Development Area/500m buffer zone.

9.101. As such, given the limited number of records, the Development Area/500m buffer zone is

considered to be of no more than local importance for golden plover.

Lapwing

9.102. Lapwing is included on Section 41 of the NERC Act, is a Red List species of conservation

concern and is included on the Lancashire LBAP.

9.103. During field surveys five flight lines were recorded and one pair of lapwing bred within the

Development Area/500m buffer zone in 2012. This pair nested in the south of the

Development Area (Figure 9.14, Appendix 9.1). The desk study identified four confirmed

breeding locations, all of one pair with the exception of three pairs over 1km from the

Development Area.

9.104. The UK breeding population is thought to be around 130,000 pairs (Robinson, 2005) (Ref. 9-

28). In the UK, the lapwing breeding population declined by 13% between 1995 and 2008.

9.105. The Regional/District/Local population sizes are not known although applying the 1%

principle it is considered likely that there are more than 100 pairs within the District and as

such the Development Area/500m buffer is considered to be of no more than local

importance for this species

Curlew

9.106. Curlew is included on Section 41 of the NERC Act, is an Amber List bird of Conservation

Concern and is included on the SNH (2006) list of species potentially subject to effects from

wind farms.

9.107. During field surveys 37 breeding season flight lines of curlew were recorded with nine non-

breeding season flight lines. During 2012 between three and seven curlew nested within the

CPL PAGE 9-24


Development Area/500m buffer zone. In 2013, no curlew bred on site although they were

present. The desk study identified four breeding location within the Development Area/2km

buffer.

9.108. The total UK breeding population is estimated to be at least 107,000 pairs (Musgrove et al.,

2013) (Ref. 9-24). In the UK, the curlew breeding population declined by 42% between 1995

and 2008. The Regional/District/Local population sizes are not known although applying the

1% principle it is considered likely that there are more than 100 pairs within the Region,

although there may be less than this number in the relevant districts and as such

precautionary approach has been taken and the Development Area/500m buffer is

considered to potentially be of district importance for this species

Dunlin

9.109. Dunlin is a Red List bird of Conservation Concern and is included on the SNH (2006) list of

species potentially subject to effects from wind farms.

9.110. This species was not recorded during field surveys, however the desk study data identified

one confirmed breeding record within SD81P (which includes part of the north of

Development area) in 2011. The UK breeding population is estimated to be 9,600 pairs

(Musgrove et al., 2013) (Ref. 9-24). Although the Regional/District/Local population sizes are

not known although the South Pennine SPA citation states that it supports 140 pairs during

the breeding season. Adopting a precautionary approach and assuming that one pair of

dunlin may occasionally breed there the Development Area and 500m buffer zone are

assessed to potentially be of district importance for this species.

Common Sandpiper

9.111. Common sandpiper is a UK Amber List species. Based on data from 2009 (Musgrove et al.,

2013) (Ref. 9-24), the total number of pairs thought to reside in Britain during the summer is

15,000.

9.112. A single flight line of this species was logged during breeding season VP surveys, with no

further records during site surveys. The desk study yielded records of this species at four

locations, with confirmed breeding within one tetrad (SD81T), this tetrad includes part of the

Development Area although based on the breeding habitat requirements (usually near water)

of this species it is unlikely to have bred within the Development Area, it may though have

bred within the 500m buffer zone.

9.113. The Regional/District/Local population sizes are not known, although there are likely to be

more than 100 pairs nesting in the district. The Development Area/500m buffer zone is

therefore assessed to be of no more than local importance for common sandpiper.

Snipe

9.114. Snipe is a UK Amber List species. Based on data from 2005, the total number of pairs

thought to reside in Britain during the summer is 59,300 (BTO, 2010) (Ref. 9-29).

9.115. During VP surveys two snipe flight lines was recorded, one during the breeding season.

There were no records of this species during walkover surveys. During the desk study

records of this species occurred at six locations, although there were no confirmed breeding

records and no probable breeding records within the Development Area/500m buffer zone.

9.116. Taking into account the paucity of records during VP and walkover surveys and lack of desk

study records the Development Area/500m buffer zone is considered to be of less than

local importance for snipe.

CPL PAGE 9-25


9.9 Assessment of Potential Effects

9.117. This section characterises and evaluates the significance of potential effects of the

Development on ornithological receptors, in the absence of mitigation, during the

construction, operational and decommissioning phases.

9.10 Identification of Ornithological Features Subject to Detailed Assessment

9.118. In accordance with the IEEM guidelines effects are only assessed in detail for receptors of

sufficient value that effects may be significant (in terms of legislation or policy). For this

assessment, effects are assessed in detail only for designated sites with a likely functional

link to the Development Area, species of at least district value or where a breach of

legislation could occur (e.g. damage to active nests).

9.119. Designated sites subject to detailed assessment in this chapter are therefore:

Knowl Moor SBI (all species except red grouse).

Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS (all species except redshank and ring ouzel).

9.120. Species subject to detailed assessment in this chapter are therefore:

Peregrine falcon – Disturbance/Displacement and Collision Risk.

Kestrel – Collision Risk only.

Golden Plover – Collision Risk only.

Curlew - Disturbance/Displacement and Collision Risk.

Dunlin – Disturbance/Displacement only.

9.10.1 Potential Construction Effects

9.121. This section characterises and evaluates the significance of potential effects on

ornithological features during the construction phase of the Development. In the absence of

mitigation, the main effects on birds during construction are likely to include the following:

habitat loss (breeding and foraging);

disturbance/displacement during construction operations (including construction of the grid

connection); and

damage to active nests.

9.122. These effects are assessed in turn below for each of the ornithological receptors outlined

previously, with the exception of kestrel and golden plover for which effects are only

assessed in relation to collision during the operational period. Effects associated with

damage to active nests are also assessed for all breeding species. Effects are also

assessed in relation to the ornithological interest features of the relevant non-statutory sites.

Peregrine Falcon

Habitat Loss

9.123. Peregrine has not been recorded nesting on site. Therefore, there will be no effect

associated with the loss of breeding habitats of peregrine falcon during construction, at a

confidence level of certain/near certain.

9.124. Peregrine do nest in the vicinity of the site, although the closest known nest site is about

500m from the closest wind farm infrastructure. This species was infrequently recorded

foraging within the Development Area during surveys. Peregrine are not particularly reliant

on any of the habitats present within the Development Area and foraging territories for this

species are very large, only a very small proportion of which will be lost. The effect of

foraging habitat loss during construction upon this species is therefore not considered

significant at a confidence level of certain/near certain.

CPL PAGE 9-26


Disturbance/Displacement during Construction

9.125. During construction, noise and visual disturbance is possible due to an increase in human

presence, vehicle movements and construction activity. Within the 2km buffer zone

peregrine appears to use different nest sites each year (see Confidential Appendix 9.5)

with the closest of these about 500m from the closest wind farm infrastructure. Ruddock &

Whitfield (2007) (Ref. 9-30) state that disturbance to peregrine can occur within a distance of

500-750m of nest sites. All nest locations within 750m are all located in a steep-sided valley

and construction areas are not likely to be visible from the nest sites. However, adopting a

precautionary approach, if nest sites within 750m are used and construction takes place

during the breeding season it is possible they could be affected by noise disturbance. Any

such disturbance is likely to affect a maximum of one breeding season and is therefore not

likely to be significant in terms of the regional peregrine population. The confidence in this

prediction is certain/near certain. However, disturbance could represent an offence under

the legislation and mitigation is therefore proposed (see Paragraph 9.11).

9.126. Due to the relative paucity of flight lines by this species over the Development Area,

disturbance to foraging peregrine during construction is not likely to be significant. The

confidence in this prediction is certain/near certain.

Damage to Active Nests

9.127. This species has not been recorded breeding within the Development area, there will

therefore be no effect associated with damage to active nests at a confidence level of

certain/near certain.

Curlew

Habitat Loss

9.128. In 2012 a maximum of four pairs bred on within the Development Area, with a further three

pairs within the 500m buffer zone. No pairs nested within the survey area in 2013, although

this may have been due to recent burning across the northern part of the site.

9.129. Curlews use different nest sites each year, albeit usually in the same general area.

Permanent habitat loss resulting from the Development will be 8.72ha (see Chapter 8:

Ecology), which includes acid grassland, marshy grassland and bog habitats, not all of

which represent suitable nesting habitat for curlew. Due to the abundance of potentially

suitable nest sites within the Development Area/adjacent areas and the relatively small area

of suitable nesting habitat that will be lost, nesting habitat loss during construction is not

considered significant. The confidence level for this prediction is certain/near certain.

9.130. The Development will also result in the loss of small areas of suitable foraging habitat. Due

to the abundance of other suitable foraging areas in the vicinity, combined with the relatively

small area to be lost as a consequence of the Development, foraging habitat loss for this

species is not considered significant. The confidence level of this prediction is



9.131. A study by Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009) (Ref. 9-31) found that within 500m of a turbine,

breeding curlew were estimated to reduce in densities by 42.4%, with a reduction of 30.4%

at 800m around operational turbines. A more recent study of survey data from wind farms

located in unenclosed upland habitats in the UK by Pearce-Higgins et al. (2012) (Ref. 9-32)

found a decline in curlew numbers of 40% during wind farm construction within a 620m area

around the outermost turbines of a wind farm. This 2012 study also suggested that if curlew

were displaced from a site during construction, it is less likely that they will return to breed in

the same area during wind farm operation. However, another study has suggested that this

is over-precautionary (Whitfield et al., 2010) (Ref. 9-33). This study summarised curlew

monitoring work at five wind farm sites, at four of these wind farms the study concluded that

CPL PAGE 9-27


there was no suggestion that curlew were displaced as a result of turbine operation. At one

site (Black Law) three territory locations were recorded within 200m of turbines.

9.132. Six of the seven potential curlew territories identified in 2012 were situated within 620m of

development infrastructure. Adopting a precautionary approach and assuming a permanent

40% reduction in breeding pairs within 620m, construction could result in the displacement of

two to three pairs of curlews. In the absence of mitigation this could represent a significant

negative impact on a population of district importance. The confidence in this prediction

is uncertain due to uncertainties regarding the current status of the species on site (no

breeding pairs were present in 2013), actual disturbance distances and whether disturbed

birds would be permanently displaced. Nevertheless, mitigation is proposed.


9.133. Due to the locations of the curlew territories, damage to active nests during construction is

possible. Such effects would have a similar effect to that described for disturbance above,

albeit damage to nests is much less likely to occur and if birds are displaced damage to

nests could not occur. Damage to nests is therefore unlikely to affect the conservation

status of this species and as such any effects are not considered significant. The

confidence in this assessment is certain/near certain.

9.134. Any damage to nests would, however, represent a breach of The Wildlife & Countryside Act

1981 (as amended) (Ref. 9-2). As such, mitigation is proposed (see Paragraph 9.11).

Dunlin

Habitat Loss

9.135. There were no survey records of dunlin. Desk study data suggested that in 2011 one pair

potentially bred within the Development Area.

9.136. Permanent habitat loss resulting from the Development will be 8.72ha (see Chapter 8:

Ecology), which includes acid grassland, marshy grassland and bog habitats, much of which

does not represent suitable nesting habitat for dunlin. Due to the absence of breeding

records of this species during the 2012-13 surveys, the abundance of suitable nesting and

foraging habitat within the Development Area/adjacent areas and the small area of suitable

nesting and foraging habitat that will be lost, habitat loss during construction is not

considered significant. The confidence level for this prediction is certain/near certain.


9.137. Due to the absence of records since 2011, this species is considered unlikely to breed with

the Development Area/500m buffer zone during construction. However, a precautionary

approach has been adopted and it has been assumed that one pair of dunlin could breed

within the Development Area. Pearce-Higgins et al. (2012) (Ref. 9-32) found little evidence

for significant reduction in dunlin densities during wind farm construction. On this basis and

also taking into account the small number of birds previously recorded at the site, the lack of

breeding pairs in 2012 and 2013 and the relative abundance of suitable nesting areas away

from construction areas, disturbance/displacement of dunlin during construction is not likely

to affect the conservation status of the species and is therefore not likely to be significant.

The confidence in this prediction is certain/near certain.


9.138. If this species nested again within the Development Area, damage to active nests during

construction is possible. Such effects would have a similar effect to that described for

disturbance to breeding birds above, albeit damage to nests is much less likely to occur.

Damage to nests is therefore unlikely to affect the conservation status of this species and as

such effects are not considered significant. The confidence in this assessment is


CPL PAGE 9-28


9.139. Any damage to nests would, however, represent a breach of The Wildlife & Countryside Act

1981 (as amended). As such, mitigation is proposed (see Paragraph 9.11).

Breeding Bird Assemblage


9.140. In the absence of mitigation, if construction takes place during the breeding season it is

possible that damage to the active nests of a range of bird species may occur. Passerine

species generally have high background mortality and fecundity rates and populations are

quick to recover from short term perturbations. The number of nests affected is also likely to

be very small. Such effects are therefore likely to be not significant in terms of the

conservation status of any of the bird species that may be affected. The confidence in this

prediction is certain/near certain.

9.141. However, damage to active nests could represent a breach of The Wildlife & Countryside Act

1981 (as amended) and as such mitigation is proposed (see Paragraph 9.11).

Knowl Moor SBI

Habitat Loss

9.142. 12.24ha, representing 2.4% of the total area of the SBI, will be lost or could be affected by

drainage effects during construction (see Chapter 8: Ecology). It is possible that curlew,

wheatear and skylark could nest within the part of Knowl Moor SBI that will be affected by

the predicted habitat loss and golden plover may have bred in this area in the past (although

golden plover did not breed here in 2012 or 2013). Given the relative abundance of

alternative habitat within the SBI loss of nesting or foraging habitat for these ornithological

interest features of the SBI habitat loss is not likely to affect the conservation status of the

relevant species within the SBI. The surveys and desk study did not identify any breeding

records for the other ornithological interest features for the SBI in the part of the SBI that will

be affected by habitat loss. Consequently no significant effects in relation to habitat loss

for ornithological interest features of the Knowl Moor SBI are predicted at a confidence of


Disturbance/Displacement during Construction Operations

9.143. Disturbance to the breeding curlew and golden plover within Knowl Moor SBI is possible,

although no golden plover or curlew were recorded breeding within the relevant part of the

SBI in 2012 or 2013. Adopting a precautionary approach, construction could result in the

displacement of breeding curlew and golden plover, which in the absence of mitigation could

represent a significant negative impact on the SBI (which is a feature of district

importance). The confidence in this prediction is uncertain due to uncertainties regarding

the current status of each species in the relevant part of the SBI, actual disturbance

distances and whether disturbed birds would be permanently displaced. Nevertheless,

mitigation is proposed. (see Paragraph 9.11)

9.144. Passerine species are generally considered unlikely to be significantly affected by

disturbance due to wind farms (construction or operation) (SNH, 2014) and the surveys and

desk study did not identify any breeding records for the other ornithological interest features

for the SBI in the part of the SBI that may be affected by disturbance. Consequently no

significant effects in relation to disturbance are predicted for any other ornithological

interest features of the Knowl Moor SBI at a confidence of certain/near certain.


Habitat Loss

9.145. 2.88ha, representing 0.86% of the total area of the BHS, will be lost or could be affected by

drainage effects during construction (see Chapter 8: Ecology). It is possible that dunlin,

golden plover, curlew, wheatear, skylark and meadow pipit could nest within the part of the

CPL PAGE 9-29


BHS that will be affected by the predicted habitat loss (although none of the wader species

bred here in 2012 or 2013). Given the relative abundance of alternative habitat within the

BHS loss of nesting or foraging habitat for these ornithological interest features of the BHS

habitat loss is not likely to affect the conservation status of the relevant species within the

BHS. The surveys and desk study did not identify any confirmed or probable breeding

records for the other ornithological interest features for the BHS in the part of the BHS that

will be affected by habitat loss. Consequently no significant effects in relation to habitat

loss for ornithological interest features of the Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS are

predicted at a confidence of certain/near certain.

Disturbance/Displacement during Construction Operations

9.146. Disturbance to the breeding dunlin, curlew and golden plover within Cowpe Moss and

Brandwood Moor BHS is possible, although none of these species were recorded breeding

within the relevant part of the BHS in 2012 or 2013. Adopting a precautionary approach,

construction could result in the displacement of breeding dunlin, curlew and golden plover,

which in the absence of mitigation could represent a significant negative impact on the

BHS (which is a feature of district importance). The confidence in this prediction is

uncertain due to uncertainties regarding the current status of each species in the relevant

part of the BHS, actual disturbance distances and whether disturbed birds would be

permanently displaced. Nevertheless, mitigation is proposed. (see Paragraph 9.11)


disturbance due to wind farms (construction or operation) (SNH, 2014) and the surveys and

desk study did not identify any breeding records for the other ornithological interest features

for the BHS in the part of the BHS that may be affected by disturbance. Consequently no


interest features of the Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS at a confidence of


9.10.2 Potential Operational Effects

9.148. This section characterises and evaluates the significance of potential effects on

ornithological features during the 25 year operational phase of the Development. Particular

attention is paid to negative effects resulting from the possible displacement of birds due to

disturbance from wind farm operation and from possible collision with turbines. These

issues are considered separately below, where appropriate, for the identified

species/designated sites.

Disturbance/Displacement

9.149. Displacement describes the fact that birds may use areas close to the turbines less often

than would be expected, potentially reducing the carrying capacity of an area for particular

species.

9.150. Potential sources of disturbance to birds during the operation of the scheme include turbine

operation, both in terms of visual disturbance and noise disturbance and increased human

activity during maintenance activities. Reductions in the density of breeding birds around

wind farms (presumed to be due to turbine operation) have been identified at distances

between 300m (Gill et al., 1996) (Ref. 9-34), and 800m (Pearce-Higgins et al., 2009 and

2012) (Ref. 9-31 & 9-32).

9.151. There is some potential for disturbance to birds due to increased human activity for turbine

(and other wind farm infrastructure) maintenance purposes. However, this generally

involves infrequent or low level disturbance and is restricted to areas adjacent to tracks and

turbine bases. Furthermore, birds within the study area will be somewhat habituated to the

low-level presence of humans through recreational activities.

CPL PAGE 9-30


Collision

9.152. Although conclusions are mostly based on wind farms located away from high

concentrations of bird activity, or on casually found victims with no correction for corpses that

are overlooked or removed by scavengers, the indications from studies so far (e.g. Crockford

(1992) (Ref. 9-35); Benner et al. (1993) (Ref. 9-36); Winkleman (1994) (Ref. 9-37); Percival

(2000) (Ref. 9-38), SNH (2010) (Ref. 9-13)) are that collisions with moving turbine blades

are relatively rare events.

9.153. Nevertheless, birds that collide with a turbine are likely to be killed. This may in turn affect

the viability of bird populations, particularly when populations are small.

9.154. The level of collision with turbines will depend on the extent to which birds are displaced and

the ability of birds to detect and manoeuvre around rotating turbine blades. The extent to

which birds are able to avoid collision with turbines has not yet been adequately quantified

for all species and therefore there are a number of uncertainties in predicting collision

mortality.

9.155. Collision Risk Modelling has been undertaken for kestrel, peregrine, golden plover and

curlew. For all other species the number of recorded flights at risk height within the turbine

envelope was so low that collision risk is considered very unlikely to be significant and

therefore detailed modelling was not considered necessary. Collision Risk Modelling

calculation sheets are included as Appendix 9.4.

9.156. As described within Paragraph 9.10.2 the turbine dimensions included within the collision

risk models have a maximum tip height of 125m and the lowest point of the rotor swept area

will be 25m above the ground. 38% of curlew and kestrel flights, 64% of peregrine flights

and 81% of golden plover included within the collision risk model as ‘at risk’ occurred within

the Low survey band. Although detailed information on flight heights within this band is not

available it is likely that a number of these flights occurred below 25m (and therefore below

the collision risk zone). Consequently the collision risk model for each species is likely to

produce a significant overestimation of collision risk.

9.157. Collision is also possible with the overhead lines required as part of the proposed grid

connection. However, target species’ flight activity in the vicinity of the proposed grid

connection, i.e. in the south of the Development Area in the area of Whimsy Hill, is relatively

low with no kestrel, peregrine or golden plover flights recorded in this area and only very low

numbers of curlew and lapwing flights. Given also that the proposed grid connection is very

short and lies directly adjacent to existing power line collisions are not likely to occur at a rate

which could affect the relevant populations. As such, no significant effects are predicted.

The confidence in this prediction is certain/near certain.

Kestrel

Collision

9.158. Collision risk modelling was completed in relation to this species using the SNH

recommended avoidance rate of 95%. A single model was used, including all flight data.

The CRM spreadsheet is included within Appendix 9.4. This modelling indicated an annual

collision rate of one bird every 0.9 years.

9.159. Village (1990) (Ref. 9-39) found the adult survival rate for kestrel was 0.69, with a juvenile

survival rate in the first year of 0.32. The average life expectancy of this species is four

years (Robinson, 2005) (Ref. 9-28).

9.160. Based on the above, the annual average natural background mortality rate of the kestrel

population is around 0.60. Although the size of the district population is not known, a

precautionary approach has been adopted which assumes a population of less than 100

pairs. Depending on the actual size of the population the loss of 0.9 birds per year could

therefore represent a significant increase (i.e. >1%) in existing mortality rates. However, as

noted previously CRM results are likely to represent a considerable over-estimate of collision

CPL PAGE 9-31


risk and consequently a significant negative effect is considered unlikely. The

confidence in this prediction is only probable due to the uncertainties outlined above.

Peregrine


9.161. The closest known peregrine nest is located over 500m from the closest turbine in a steep-

sided valley which provides visual screening from the turbines. Two studies (cited in

Madders & Whitfield, 2006) (Ref. 9-40) found that this species has a low sensitivity to

displacement due to operational turbines, with a maximum disturbance distance of 500m –

750m suggested. Given the intervening distance and screening disturbance to nesting

peregrines due to operating turbines are not likely to be significant. The confidence of this


9.162. Few flight lines were logged within the turbine envelope during the survey period, indicating

that the site is not regularly used for foraging. Because of this, combined with the large

areas covered by foraging peregrine (birds forage up to 6km from their nest site (SNH,

2012a) (Ref. 9-11) and hence the large area of alternative foraging habitat that will remain

available away from turbines, the effects of disturbance/displacement to foraging peregrines

during operation are not considered to be significant. The confidence of this prediction is


Collision




collision rate of one bird every 8.9 years.

9.164. Taking into account this very low predicted rate of collision, no significant effects are

predicted at a confidence level of probable.

Curlew


9.165. Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009) (Ref. 9-31) indicates that 500-800m is the limit for disturbance

to this species. No significant disturbance effects were noted in relation to access tracks,

although the study found that within 500m of a turbine, breeding curlew have been found to

reduce in densities by 42.4% with a reduction of 30.4% at 800 m. A more recent study

(Whitfield et al., 2012) (Ref. 9-33) which summarised curlew monitoring work at five wind

farm sites questioned the findings of the earlier study. At four of these five wind farms the

study concluded that there was no suggestion that curlew were displaced as a result of

turbine operation. At one site (Black Law) three territory locations were within 200m of

turbines.

9.166. Adopting a precautionary approach six of the seven potential territories were situated within

500m of development infrastructure in 2012. Based upon the information provided within

Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009) (Ref. 9-31) and assuming birds are not displaced during

construction (see paragraph 9.10.1) around a 40% reduction in breeding pairs within 500m

is possible, this could therefore result in the displacement of two to three pairs of curlews. In

the absence of mitigation this could represent a significant negative impact on a

population of district importance. The confidence in this prediction is uncertain due to

uncertainties regarding the current status of the species on site (no breeding pairs were

present in 2013), actual disturbance distances and whether birds would be displaced during

construction (birds which are permanently displaced during construction can obviously not

be displaced again during operation). Nevertheless, mitigation is proposed (see paragraph

9.11).

CPL PAGE 9-32


Collision

9.167. Collision risk modelling was completed in relation to curlew using the SNH recommended

avoidance rate of 98%. A single model was used, including all flight data. The CRM

spreadsheet is included within Appendix 9.4. This modelling indicated a collision rate of

one bird every 9.2 years, resulting in a total of less than three collisions during the wind

farms operational life. Taking into account this very low predicted rate of collision, no

significant effects on the district curlew population are predicted at a confidence level of


Dunlin


9.168. Due to the absence of records since 2011, this species is considered unlikely to breed with

the Development Area/500m buffer zone on a regular basis. Pearce-Higgins et al. (2012)

(Ref. 9-32) found little evidence for significant reductions in dunlin densities during wind farm

operation. On this basis and also taking into account the small number of birds previously

recorded at the site, the lack of breeding pairs in 2012 and 2013 and the relative abundance

of suitable nesting areas away from construction areas, displacement of dunlin during

operation is not likely to affect the conservation status of the species and is therefore not

likely to be significant. The confidence in this prediction is certain/near certain.

Golden Plover

Collision




collision rate of one bird every 6.6 years or four birds during the operational life of the wind

farm.

9.170. Taking into account this low predicted rate of collision, no significant effects on the local

golden plover population are predicted at a confidence level of probable.

Knowl Moor SBI


9.171. Disturbance to the breeding curlew and golden plover within Knowl Moor SBI during wind

farm operation is possible, although no golden plover or curlew were recorded breeding

within the relevant part of the SBI in 2012 or 2013. Adopting a precautionary approach, wind

farm operation could result in the displacement of breeding curlew and golden plover, which

in the absence of mitigation could represent a significant negative impact on the SBI

(which is a feature of district importance). The confidence in this prediction is uncertain

due to uncertainties regarding the current status of each species in the relevant part of the

SBI, actual disturbance distances and whether birds would be displaced during construction

(birds which are permanently displaced during construction can obviously not be displaced

again during operation). Nevertheless, mitigation is proposed (see Paragraph 9.11).


disturbance due to wind farms operation (SNH, 2014) (Ref 9-6) and the surveys and desk

study did not identify any breeding records for the other ornithological interest features for

the SBI in the part of the SBI that may be affected by disturbance. Consequently no


interest features of the Knowl Moor SBI at a confidence of certain/near certain.

Collision

9.173. Of the species included as interest features of Knowl Moor SBI, flight activity was considered

sufficient to require CRM in relation to curlew, golden plover and kestrel. The predicted

CPL PAGE 9-33


collision risk for curlew and golden plover is very low and no significant negative effect on

the SBI population of these species is predicted. The predicted collision risk for kestrel is not

likely to be significant for the district kestrel population, although for the much smaller SBI

population any collision, particularly if it involved adult birds breeding within the SBI could

represent a significant negative effect on the SBI population. The confidence in this

prediction is uncertain however due to the uncertainties outlined in paragraph 9.156.



9.174. Disturbance to the breeding dunlin, curlew and golden plover within Cowpe Moss and

Brandwood Moor BHS is possible, although none of these species were recorded breeding

within the relevant part of the BHS in 2012 or 2013. Adopting a precautionary approach,

wind farm operation could result in the displacement of breeding dunlin, curlew and golden

plover, which in the absence of mitigation could represent a significant negative impact on

the BHS (which is a feature of district importance). The confidence in this prediction is

uncertain due to uncertainties regarding the current status of each species in the relevant

part of the BHS, actual disturbance distances and whether birds would be displaced during

construction (birds which are permanently displaced during construction can obviously not

be displaced again during operation). Nevertheless, mitigation is proposed (see Paragraph

9.11).


disturbance due to wind farm operation (SNH, 2014) (Ref. 9-6) and the surveys and desk

study did not identify any breeding records for the other ornithological interest features for

the BHS in the part of the BHS that may be affected by disturbance. Consequently no


interest features of the Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS at a confidence of


Collision

9.176. Of the species included as interest features of Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS,

flight activity was considered sufficient to require CRM in relation to curlew and golden plover

only. The predicted collision risk for curlew and golden plover is very low and no significant

negative effect on the BHS population of these species is predicted. The confidence in this


9.10.3 Potential Decommissioning Effects

9.177. This section characterises and evaluates, insofar as is possible, the significance of potential

effects on important bird species/assemblages during the decommissioning of the

Development.

9.178. It is difficult to predict effects which would arise from decommissioning and the confidence in

all predictions is considered to be probable or uncertain, due to the length of the operational

period (25 years) and because the future composition of the bird community is not known.

9.179. In the absence of mitigation, decommissioning could cause short term effects through

disturbance or damage to active nests similar to those predicted to occur during the

construction period. Negative effects for those species present at the time of

decommissioning are likely to be short term, decommissioning taking approximately six to

nine months, and restricted to a relatively small proportion of the site. Because the effects

are predicted to be short term and spatially discrete the effects are not anticipated to be

significant.

9.180. Surveys will be undertaken prior to decommissioning to inform an up to date assessment of

potential effects on important bird species. Even if effects are considered unlikely to be

significant, based on current legislation, damage to active nests, or disturbance to species

CPL PAGE 9-34


listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) while breeding,

could represent an offence and mitigation may therefore be required.

9.11 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

9.181. This section presents specific mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures to be

adopted through the different phases of the Development and assesses residual effects.

9.11.1 Construction Mitigation Measures

9.182. A breeding bird protection plan will be produced and agreed prior to construction taking

place. This will include a range of measures to avoid disturbance to important bird species

(e.g. peregrine, curlew, golden plover and dunlin) during the breeding season. Such

measures will include pre-construction surveys to identify nest locations and the imposition

of disturbance-free buffer zones around nest locations whilst nests are occupied. The size of

these buffer zones will be determined following completion of the pre-construction surveys in

accordance with relevant literature and best practice and will also consider site-specific

factors, e.g. topography. The breeding bird protection plan will subsequently be overseen by

an Ecological Clerk of Works (see Chapter 8: Ecology, Section 8.9).

9.183. In the absence of mitigation there is a risk that nests could be damaged or destroyed during

construction activities. This could result in a breach of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981

(as amended). During construction works, in order to ensure compliance with the legislation,

potentially damaging works will either be timed to take place outside the main bird breeding

season (March to August inclusive, though some species can nest outside this period) or

suitable habitat will be checked for nests by a suitably qualified ecologist prior to works

taking place. If necessary, works would then be delayed in areas where active nests are

identified and might be damaged.

9.184. Disturbance to those parts of the Development Area where construction is not actively in

progress will be kept to a minimum. This will be achieved as follows:

By minimising the area(s) where construction activities are occurring at any one time; and

By ensuring that site workers and visitors remain where they are working and do not roam

unnecessarily.

9.11.2 Operation Mitigation Measures

9.185. Outline details of proposed habitat restoration and management during wind farm operation

are set out in Chapter 8: Ecology, Section 8.9 and shown in Figure 8.4. Full details will be

provided in a detailed Habitat Management Plan (HMP), to be produced and agreed with

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and Rossendale Borough Council, in consultation

with Natural England and the Environment Agency, post consent but prior to development

commencing.

9.186. As discussed in Section 8.9, the scope for habitat restoration and management within much

of the Development Area is limited by its status as registered common land. Habitat

management proposals are therefore targeted at measures which the developer will be able

to implement, without necessarily having to obtain the agreement of all registered

commoners.

9.187. Of particular relevance to this chapter, the habitat management proposals include

permanently fencing off approximately 31ha of the Development Area, outside the area of

registered common land, to allow for control of grazing levels. Indicative boundaries for this

area are shown in Figure 8.4. Within this area, grazing density will be reduced and

measures designed to reduce the dominance of purple moor-grass will be employed as

required (see Section 8.9). Grazing management will aim to create optimal nesting habitat

for curlew. Curlews nest in a wide variety of vegetation types, usually selecting relatively tall

vegetation, e.g. within a tussock on rough pasture and grazing should aim to achieve a

mosaic of taller, tussocky vegetation and shorter grassy areas (RSPB, undated) (Ref. 9-41).

CPL PAGE 9-35


9.188. Approximately 7.5 ha of suitable nesting habitat plus around 22.5ha of suitable foraging

habitat are required to support one pair of curlew (Johnstone et al., 2011) (Ref. 9-42).

Potentially suitable foraging habitat is plentiful both within and adjacent to the Development

Area and is not considered to be a limiting factor affecting the local curlew population. The

proposed habitat management area did not support nesting curlew in 2012 (see Figure 9.13)

and does not currently provide optimal habitat being dominated by purple moor-grass. The

positive management of ~31ha aimed at providing suitable nesting habitat should therefore

provide sufficient habitat to support four additional pairs of curlew.

9.189. It is acknowledged that the proposed habitat management area lies within 800m of proposed

turbine locations and any birds that could otherwise be attracted to nest there could be

subject to disturbance. However, according to Pearce-Higgins et al. (2012) (Ref. 9-31)

curlew appear to be more susceptible to displacement during the construction period, which

will be mitigated for by construction timing restrictions, as set out above. Whilst some further

displacement from this area during wind farm construction can’t be ruled out the

management of more favourable nesting habitat potentially able to support four pairs, as set

out above, will provide compensation for the predicted displacement effects outlined in

Section 9.11, i.e. the possible loss of 2-3 pairs.

9.190. Monitoring of the effects of the wind farm and the proposed habitat management on curlew

(and other wader species) will be undertaken. Full details will be provided in the detailed

HMP but at this stage monitoring is considered likely to include surveys prior to construction,

during construction and in years one, three and five post construction. Surveys will follow

the standard Brown & Shepherd (1993) methodology, with four visits carried out between

early April and mid-July, in line with SNH (2014) guidelines (Ref. 9-6). The need for

subsequent monitoring will be determined following review of the results of monitoring in

year five.

9.11.3 Decommissioning Mitigation Measures

9.191. Mitigation measures during the decommissioning phase of the Development will be

developed following the completion of update surveys prior to decommissioning taking place.

At this stage it is considered likely that measures will be similar to those outlined for

construction.

9.12 Residual Effects

9.192. In the absence of mitigation, potentially significant effects during construction were predicted

for curlew (disturbance/displacement), Knowl Moor SBI (disturbance/displacement to curlew

and possibly golden plover) and Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS

(disturbance/displacement to curlew and possibly golden plover and dunlin). The

implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in Section 9.13 will avoid significant

disturbance to breeding waders and as such no significant residual effects are predicted

during construction. Confidence in this prediction is certain/near certain.

9.193. In the absence of mitigation, potentially significant effects during operation were predicted for

curlew (disturbance/displacement), Knowl Moor SBI (disturbance/displacement to curlew and

possibly golden plover and possible collision effects for kestrel) and Cowpe Moss and

Brandwood Moor BHS (disturbance/displacement to curlew and possibly golden plover and

dunlin).

9.194. As set out in Section 9.13 the proposed habitat management plan will compensate for

possible disturbance/displacement effects on curlew and as such no significant residual

effects on curlew are predicted during operation. Confidence in this prediction is probable

as there remain a number of uncertainties over potential impacts of wind farms on curlew.

9.195. The proposed habitat management plan involves the management of habitats within Cowpe

Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS to benefit breeding curlew. This will compensate for any

possible disturbance/displacement effects within the BHS and as such no significant

residual effects on Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS are predicted during

CPL PAGE 9-36


operation. Confidence in this prediction is probable as there remain a number of

uncertainties over potential impacts of wind farms on curlew and other wader species.

9.196. There remains the potential for a significant negative effect on Knowl Moor SBI during

operation due to possible disturbance/displacement to curlew (and possibly golden plover)

and possible collision effects for kestrel. Confidence in this prediction is uncertain however

for the reasons outlined previously. It should also be noted that mitigation for possible

disturbance/displacement effects on curlew is provided within the Development Area, albeit

outwith the SBI boundaries. Furthermore, whilst not directly benefitting breeding waders or

kestrel, the HMP includes a peat restoration scheme which is largely located within Knowl

Moor SBI and will therefore offset any potential negative effect on SBI birds to some degree.

9.13 Cumulative Effects

9.197. Cumulative effects are defined by the European Commission (1999) (Ref. 9-43) as: “Impacts

that result from incremental changes caused by other...present or reasonably foreseeable

actions together with the project [being assessed within the EIA]”.

9.198. The “other...present or reasonably foreseeable actions...” in this definition are considered to

be those planning applications that have been constructed, awarded permission for

development and are yet to be started and those that are currently at the planning

application stage.

9.199. In addition, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2006) (Ref. 9-

44) advises that, in most EIAs, a cumulative effect assessment should consider the

combined effects of the development proposed together with the effects of any

developments that are already being constructed, or that have not yet commenced but have

valid planning permission. In addition, the good practice guide notes that future

developments that will be located within the vicinity of the proposed development can also

be included in the assessment under the remit ‘committed development’. When determining

the scope of this cumulative assessment, consideration was also given to relevant SNH

guidance (SNH, 2012).

9.200. The Development Area does not have a functional link with any statutory designated sites,

such as the South Pennines SPA/SSSI, will not affect any regionally important bird species

and the ornithological effects will be confined to a relatively small area, e.g. Knowl Moor SBI,

Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS and other land within and immediately adjacent to

the Development Area. As such the scope of the cumulative assessment has been

restricted to a relatively small area, i.e. within ~5km. Single turbine developments have been

omitted from consideration as ornithological impacts in relation to such developments are

rarely assessed in detail. As such, the only schemes considered with regard to cumulative

effects are the operational Scout Moor Wind Farm (26 turbines, adjacent west) and the

proposed Scout Moor Extension Wind Farm (22 turbines, adjacent west).

9.201. Scout Moor Wind Farm has been operational since 2008 and was operational at the time

surveys were completed for the proposed Development in 2012 and 2013. Scout Moor Wind

Farm therefore forms part of the existing baseline used to inform this assessment and the

assessment of potential operational disturbance/displacement impacts presented in Section

9.11 takes Scout Moor into account. As such, additional cumulative assessment is not

required.

9.202. Cumulative effects with Scout Moor Wind Farm are possible in respect of collision, however

in the absence of the ES for Scout Moor (which was not available despite several requests to

the developer and Local Planning Authority) collision risk estimates for Scout Moor Wind

Farm are not known. As such it is not possible to undertake a meaningful assessment of

cumulative collision risk.

9.203. A Development Consent Order (DCO) application for Scout Moor Extension Wind Farm has

yet to be submitted. A Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) (Ref. 9-45) was

issued in late June 2014 (Turley Planning, 2014) but was not received in time to be

CPL PAGE 9-37


considered in detail as part of this assessment. Given that further surveys for Scout Moor

Extension Wind Farm are currently in progress, which may change the conclusions

presented in the PEIR, it is not possible to undertake a meaningful assessment of cumulative

effects in relation to the proposed Scout Moor Extension at this time.

9.14 Summary and Conclusions

9.204. The assessment of potential effects on birds was based on a series of walkover and vantage

point surveys undertaken between January 2012 and June 2013. In addition, a wide range

of existing survey data was also used to inform the assessment.

9.205. Potential effects on birds considered in the assessment include: habitat loss (construction);

disturbance/displacement (construction, operation and decommissioning); damage to active

nests (construction and decommissioning); and collision with turbines (operation). Species

considered in the assessment included: peregrine falcon; kestrel; golden plover; curlew; and

dunlin. Potential effects on Knowl Moor SBI and Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS,

both of which are designated in part for their ornithological value, are also assessed.

9.206. The South Pennine Moors SPA and SSSI is located 7.5km east of the Development Area.

However, following detailed assessment it is concluded that there is no functional link

between the Development Area and the South Pennine Moors SPA/SSSI and therefore

there is no likely significant effect on the SPA/SSSI.

9.207. A breeding bird protection plan will be produced and agreed prior to construction taking

place, which will include a range of measures to avoid disturbance to important bird species

during the breeding season. The implementation of the breeding bird protection plan will

avoid significant disturbance to breeding waders and as such no significant residual effects

are predicted during construction.

9.208. Habitat management proposals during wind farm operation include the management of

approximately 31ha within Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS to benefit breeding

curlew. This will compensate for possible disturbance/displacement effects on curlew and

other wader species within the BHS and as such no significant residual effects on curlew or

on Cowpe Moss and Brandwood Moor BHS are predicted during wind farm operation.

9.209. A significant negative effect on Knowl Moor SBI, which is considered to be of district level

importance, is possible both in terms of disturbance/displacement to curlew (and possibly

golden plover) and possible collision effects for kestrel, although this conclusion is uncertain

and precautionary. Mitigation for possible disturbance/displacement effects on curlew is

provided within the Development Area, albeit outwith the SBI boundaries. Furthermore,

whilst not directly benefitting breeding waders or kestrel, the proposed HMP includes a peat

restoration scheme which is largely located within Knowl Moor SBI and will therefore offset

potential negative effect on SBI birds.

9.15 References

9-1 The EC Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild

birds)

9-2 The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

9-3 The Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

9-4 The Natural Environment & Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006

9-5 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (2006) Guidelines for Ecological

Impact Assessment in the UK.

9-6 SNH (2014).Recommended bird survey methods to inform impact assessment of

onshore windfarms. May 2014 update.

CPL PAGE 9-38


9-7 Natural England (2010). Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds. Technical

Information Note TIN069.

9-8 SNH (2006). Assessing the significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on birds outwith

designated areas.

9-9 RSPB, CCW, BTO, NE, NIEA, SNH and WT (2013). The State of the UK’s Birds 2012.

9-10 Brown, A.F. & Shepherd, K.B. (1993) A method for censusing upland breeding waders. Bird

Study, 40: 189-195.

9-11 SNH (2012a). Assessing Connectivity with Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

SNH (2012b). Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments

9-12 West Coast Energy Ltd (2003). Scout Moor Wind Farm Environmental Statement,

Appendices, Volume 2, June 2003.

9-13 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (2005, revised 2010) Survey methods for use in

assessing the impacts of onshore windfarms on bird communities.

9-14 Marchant, J.H. (1983). Common Birds Census instructions. BTO, Tring. 12pp

9-15 SNH (2010). Use of Avoidance Rates in the SNH Wind Farm Collision Risk Model

9-16 Band, W., Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P., (2007). Developing field and analytical methods to

assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In de Lucas, M., Janss, G., and Ferrer, M. (eds)

“Birds and Wind Power”. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona

9-17 Provan, S. and Whitfield, D.P. (2007). Avian Flight Speeds and Biometrics for use in

Collision Risk Modelling. Natural Research report to Scottish Natural Heritage

9-18 Cramp, S and Simmons, K E L (eds.) (2004) BWPi: Birds of the Western Palearctic

interactive (DVD-ROM). BirdGuides Ltd, Sheffield.

9-19 Alerstam, T., Christie, D.A. (1982). Bird Migration. Cambridge University Press

9-20 Cooke, M.T. (1933). Speed of Bird Flight. (Flight speed for Long-billed Curlew, considered to

be a comparable species in terms of size and flight speed, has been used as no value of

flight speed for Eurasian curlew given in the literature)

9-21 Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan Available at

http://www.lancspartners.org/lbap/biodiversity_action_plans.asp (Accessed 12/05/14)

9-22 Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan (accessed 12/05/2014) available at:

http://www.gmbp.org.uk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=27

9-23 Holt, C., Austin, G., Calbrade, N., Mellan, H., Thewlis, R., Hall, C., Stroud, D.,

Wotton, S. & Musgrove, A. (2009). Waterbirds in the UK 2007/08: The Wetland Bird

Survey. BTO, WWT, RSPB & JNCC

9-24 Musgrove, A., Aebischer, N., Eaton, M., Hearn, R., Newson, S., Noble, D., Parsons, M.,

Risely, K. and Stroud, D. (2013). Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the

United Kingdom. British Birds, 106: 64-100

9-25 Banks, A.N., Coombes, R.H. & Crick, H.Q.P. (2003) The Peregrine Falcon breeding

population of the UK & Isle of Man in 2002. Research Report 330. BTO, Thetford.

9-26 Balmer, D.E., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B.J., Swann, R.L., Downie, I.S. & Fuller, R.J. 2013. Bird

Atlas 2007–11: the breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland. BTO Books, Thetford.

9-27 Holling et al. (2013). Rare Breeding Birds in the United Kingdom in 2011. British Birds 106;

496-554

http://www.gmbp.org.uk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=27

CPL PAGE 9-39


9-28 Robinson, R.A. (2005) BirdFacts: profiles of birds occurring in Britain & Ireland (BTO

Research Report 407). BTO, Thetford (http://www.bto.org/birdfacts, accessed on

06/06/2014)

9-29 British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) (2010). Snipe [online] available at :

http://www.bto.org/birdtrends2010/wcrsnipe.shtml

9-30 Ruddock, M. & Whitfield, D.P. (2007). A Review of Disturbance Distances in Selected Bird

Species. A report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage.

9-31 Pearce-Higgins, J. W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, R. (2009)

The Distribution of Breeding Birds around Upland Wind Farms. Journal of Applied Ecology,

46, 1323 – 1331

9-32 Pearce-Higgins, J., W., Stephen, L., Douse, A., and Langston, R., H., W. (2012). Greater

impacts of wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation:

results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology. Volume 49,

Issue 2, 386-394

9-33 Whitfield, D. P., Green, M., & Fielding, A. H. (2010). Are breeding Eurasian curlew

Numenius arquata displaced by wind energy developments? Natural Research Projects Ltd,

Banchory, Scotland.

9-34 Gill J P, Townsley M & Mudge G P (1996) Review of the impacts of wind farms and other

aerial structures upon birds. SNH Review 21.

9-35 Crockford, N.J. (1992): A review of the possible impacts of wind farms on birds and other

wildlife. JNCC report no. 27, Peterborough.

9-36 Benner, J.H.B., Berkhuizen, J.C., de Graaf, R.J. and Postma, A.D. (1993): Impact of wind

turbines on birdlife. Report no. 9247. Consultants on Energy and the Environment,

Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

9-37 Winkelmann, J.E. (1994): Bird/wind turbine investigations in Europe. Proc. of the National

Avian Wind Power Planning Meeting, Denver, Colorado, pp 43-48. In Benner, J.H.B.,

Berkhuizen, J.C., de Graaf, R.J. and Postma, A.D. 1993. Impact of wind turbines on birdlife.

Report no. 9247. Consultants on Energy and the Environment, Rotterdam.

9-38 Percival, S.M. (2000): Birds and wind turbines in Britain. British Wildlife 12:1, pp 8-15

9-39 Village, A (1990). The Kestrel. Poyser, London

9-40 Madders, M. & Whitfield, D., P. (2006). Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm

impacts. Ibis 148 (Suppl. 1), 43 – 56.

9-41 RSPB (undated). Farming for Birds in Wales: Curlew.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Englishcurlews1_tcm9-133250.pdf [last accessed 1st July

2014]

9-42 Johnstone IG, Thorpe RI & Noble DG (2011) The State of Birds in Wales 2011. RSPB

Cymru, Cardiff.

9-43 European Commission (1999). Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative

Impacts as well as Impact Interactions [online] available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/guidel.pdf

9-44 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2006). Environmental Impact

Assessment: a guide to good practice and procedures

9-45 Turley Planning (2014). Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) Proposed

Extension of Scout Moor Wind Farm. http://www.scoutmoorwindfarm.co.uk/images/scout-

moor/Peir/Volume%201%20-

%20Main%20Text/Preliminary%20Environmental%20Information%20Report%20(PEIR).pdf

[last accessed 1 July 2014.

http://www.bto.org/birdtrends2010/wcrsnipe.shtml

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Englishcurlews1_tcm9-133250.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/guidel.pdf

http://www.scoutmoorwindfarm.co.uk/images/scout-moor/Peir/Volume%201%20-%20Main%20Text/Preliminary%20Environmental%20Information%20Report%20(PEIR).pdf



Rooley Moor Wind Farm EIA Chapter 9: Ornithology PROJECT TITLE · ornithology could be combined as a sub-set of the ecology chapter Birds are often the most significant ecological

Documents